Thursday in the Montreal Gazette, somebody sent in a letter saying his cat was killed by a pitty and pitties shouldn't be allowed in the city. I can't find it on the net, but I'll type it up later...

I'm gonna write back.:frustrated:

technodoll

September 17th, 2006, 10:49 PM

oh you're kidding,.. WTF! bet his alley cat was loose without a collar, peeing in somebody's garden, and the dog got upset and nature took its course? :frustrated: grumble grumble. as if labradors, dalmations and even spaniels can't kill cats!! :frustrated:

My wife, recovering from an operation, was in danger but tried to beat the animal off with a crutch. It would not let go of the cat. The police captured the animal and returned it to its owner.

We were told the owner was charged with several offences - possible penalties amount to a few hundred dollars.

The authorities refuse to tell us the name(s) and address of the owner(s) despite our official request for a copy of the police report.

We wish to warn N.D.G. residents near the intersection of Hampton and Terrebonne that there is a vicious dog in the neighborhood. It will eventually escape again and its next victim could be your child.

The dog is dangerous and should be put down. Owning a pit bull should not be allowed in densely populated areas.

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression because "it's just part of the breed" than it is for a golden retriever breeder to breed a golden retriever with hip dysplasia because "it's just part of the breed" . At least there aren't any golden retriever breeders who are breeding FOR hip dysplasia. Unfortunately we can't say the same about pit bull breeders and dangerous levels of dog aggression.

If pit bull people want to serve pit bulls, they should stop thinking that people who object to the temperament flaw of animal aggression are unfairly "bashing" pit bulls and think of ways to eliminate it (at least among pit bulls not bred for fighting--obviously there is a huge contingent of pit bull breeders who LIKE animal aggression). A good place to start would be to make dog aggression a disqualification in the AKC AmStaff and staffordshire bull terrier standards and in the UKC American pit bull standard. Think of how much GOOD would come if these standards added a "Temperament" section that read:

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being). A dog who moves slightly because he is wiggling with happiness upon being touched should not be faulted, but a dog who is aloof or uninterested in the judge is not displaying proper temperament and shall be faulted accordingly. A dog who displays any degree shyness whatsoever shall not place. A dog who displays any aggression toward any person in the ring shall be disqualified. While American Staffordshire terriers was historically known as dog aggressive, dog aggression is completely incompatible with the modern role of the American Staffordshire terrier as a working companion animal. Consequently, any AmStaff who shows any dog aggression in the ring shall be disqualified."

Think of the GOOD publicity that this would give "pit bulls" when the television announcer at Westminster says every year "AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are the only two breeds where failure to wag their tail at, and be happy to see, the judge is a fault." People would start to see pit bulls as FRIENDLY dogs (which they properly should be) rather than as menacing dogs.

phoenix

September 18th, 2006, 08:46 AM

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals.

I don't agree. It is in ALL dogs' natures to have a predator instinct. It can be trained out of them to some extent through exposure while young to different animals and through obedience training.

I once brought home a lab/beagle cross from the humane society and the first thing it did was kill my sister's kitten. We were so upset that I had to bring the dog back to the humane society (I ended up with a puppy instead from them)- but that was not a vicious dog at all; she just didn't know that the cat was a part of the family that she was to tolerate. It was my fault because I didn't train her or acclimatize her to the rules of her new home, I assumed that she would be ok with the cat.

Just the other day my labx Sam just killed a mouse out of the woodpile. Does this mean he is an aggressive dog? Not in the least.

I think it is right to blame the owner for letting his dog out of his control (ie loose and on someone else's property)-

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 10:03 AM

Well, the part about letting the dog roam free definitely tells us right away that this owner is less than responsible. It could have been any breed after that.:shrug:

technodoll

September 18th, 2006, 10:36 AM

oh my... that is just so wrong. i retract what i said before! but unless you live on street-level and your door is wide open (which is rare in a city specially that neighborhood) , how else would a stray dog enter your home? :confused: people! close your doors! the cat could as well have walked out of the appartment, crossed the street and gotten squished by a car. this story makes no sense. There are many inconsistensies in this story. so the dog was not agressive since it was hit by a crutch and didn't bite back, it was focussed on the cat (aka prey). how did it get in the home in the first place, did it ring the doorbell and ask to be let in? :confused: stupid owners.. grrrr. always the stupid owners.

LM1313

September 18th, 2006, 11:14 AM

I disagree too . . . Many breeds are notorious for killing small, fleeing animals. (Huskies, greyhounds, whippets.) Half the dogs in the local daschund rescue have a note in their profile saying they can't have homes with cats. No, animal aggressiveness should not be encouraged or specifically bred for, but if it's there, that doesn't mean the dog is a threat to humans.

It does mean the owners should take the responsibility to keep the dog safely contained in their yard, of course. :)

jawert1

September 18th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

My English Pointer almost shook a Bichon Frise puppy to death last fall, as said pup was running amuck and charged my dogs barking and growling. You've made a gross assumption about a dog's propensity to kill based on breed, since technically, my Simon should classified as "dangerously aggressive" according to that statement.

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being).

If you met Simon on the street, you'd get that exact response from both him and my Shepherd/Chow mix Peaches. You'd never guess that he darn near killed another dog.

Looks are deceiving, I challenge the author of the letter to prove this was indeed a pitbull. I had a neighbor (not the sharpest tool in the shed mind you) ask me if Simon was a pittie, seriously, a pitbull. It occurred to me then and there, that there are folks willing to classify anything shorthaired and of medium build (30lbs+) as a pitbull if it serves a purpose to do so, mentally biased or just plain ignorant of what different breeds of dog actually look like.

Also, you have to actually *get* ppl to either watch or attend dog shows en masse in order to change the mass opinion folks have of pits, AmStaffs and Bull terriers if it were as simple as an announcer;s/judge's verbiage

seeker

September 18th, 2006, 03:08 PM

It seems that as soon as a dog attacks anything either human or animal it is immediately deemed a pitbull . Did we not have at least 3 mistaken IDs just before this pitbull ban came into effect ? The "less than Honourable" Mr Bryant even went on TV after 2 of these misIDs and stated that these attacks are why we need a ban . The problem was just after he went on his usual rant the dogs were properly ID'd and the public{at least any that were watching} seen him for what he is a grandstanding polititian{not the first}.
On another note my niece has a jackrussel terrier that has attacked many cats and killed at least one that i know of. Yet no one has called this dog a menace or that he should be banned from living in the city of Hamilton. If he was a pit I am sure that by now he would have been PTS.
And I agree this storey is very incomplete . People as dog owners have a responsibility to keep their dogs from running at large . But in the same note if your door is left open who knows what might wander in or out ? As for the letter stating that the dog is likely to escape again and is dangerous . That is fair warning to the nieghbourhood . But stating that the next victim could be your child is "fear mongering" there is no basis for this statement . The dog attacked an animal not the woman that tried to get it off the cat . Even after she hit the dog there is nothing stating the dog turned on her or showed any human aggression whatsoever to her or the police.

K9Friend

September 18th, 2006, 03:26 PM

Why should these cats be allowed to roam free in the city???? I've got at least a dozen cats right now that are teasing my dog - day in, day out - they do their business in my garden, pee at my front door, and screech at night. Yeah, I'm fed up with them and if my dog were to be left alone unsupervised in my yard - it wouldn't take long for my dog to jump any size fence up to 8' to get a hold of a cat that had just crossed the back fence of my yard.

If you're going to let your cat roam free - face the consequences. It can get hit by a car, killed by a dog, or even poisoned by some creep. It's not worth it.

chico2

September 18th, 2006, 04:13 PM

K9Friend,I agree,cats should not be roaming bothering other people but like with dogs running lose being the owners fault,the same goes for cats.
I don't know how this dog got access to the cat-owners house,sounds a little fishy to me.
But if this was the case and the owner lets the dog run loose,she/he IMO has lost the priviledge to own a dog,unless the dog broke loose and was lost.
I can understand the cat-owner being hysterical after witnessing something this horrible and knowing how many people view Pit-Bulls:sad:he uses the pittie breed, to frighten people.
He is angry and sad after losing his 10yr old cat,as I would be,unfortunately he lashes out at all Pit-Bulls in general:pawprint:

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 05:13 PM

I disagree too . . . Many breeds are notorious for killing small, fleeing animals. (Huskies, greyhounds, whippets.) Half the dogs in the local daschund rescue have a note in their profile saying they can't have homes with cats. No, animal aggressiveness should not be encouraged or specifically bred for, but if it's there, that doesn't mean the dog is a threat to humans.

It does mean the owners should take the responsibility to keep the dog safely contained in their yard, of course. :)

Interesting that half the dachshunds in rescue can't be around cats. I will wager that, for at least some of these dogs, animal aggression is the reason they lost their homes and need to be rescued. Dachshunds, however, are lucky since they are highly adoptable and have a devoted fanbase and few die in shelters for want of a home. Sadly for pit bulls, MANY die in shelters, and dog aggression is an automatic death sentence in most shelters, even if the dog is lucky enough to land in one of the (few) shelters which adopt out pit bulls at all.

When you are dealing with a trait that is completely and totally negative (as dog aggression is for pit bulls), it isn't enough to say that you aren't breeding FOR it. You really have to consciously breed away from it. After all, would it be good enough for you if a golden retriever breeder said "I don't breed FOR hip dysplasia in my dogs..." or should they actually test for it and eliminate the dogs with this genetic flaw from their breeding program? Why is the completely negative trait of dog aggression any different from hip dysplasia?

And who said anything about dog aggression necessarily meaning "that the dog is a threat to humans?" What dog aggression means is that the dog is a threat to dogs. That certainly can up the chances that a human being will get hurt (we recently discussed an incident where a pit bull/mastiff bit off a woman's finger when she was trying to break up a dog fight to protect a child who was trapped), but even if you ignore that, just being a threat to other dogs is enough to make dog aggression a temperament flaw, isn't it?

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 05:21 PM

K9Friend,I agree,cats should not be roaming bothering other people but like with dogs running lose being the owners fault,the same goes for cats.
I don't know how this dog got access to the cat-owners house,sounds a little fishy to me.
But if this was the case and the owner lets the dog run loose,she/he IMO has lost the priviledge to own a dog,unless the dog broke loose and was lost.
I can understand the cat-owner being hysterical after witnessing something this horrible and knowing how many people view Pit-Bulls:sad:he uses the pittie breed, to frighten people.
He is angry and sad after losing his 10yr old cat,as I would be,unfortunately he lashes out at all Pit-Bulls in general:pawprint:

Frankly, dogs who kill other animals aren't usually "let run loose." It only takes one or two instances where the dog kills somebody else's animals before something happens and the animal aggressive dog dies too, generally. So if you are going to give owners of animal aggressive dogs the "he just got out this once" or "the gate didn't latch" or "the nine year old child didn't close the front door all the way" excuse, you can pretty much say that all they have to do is say "accidents happen" and that is good enough if their dog kills your dog.

And who here hasn't EVER had a dog get loose? I am a highly responsible dog owner, and I have had loose dogs more often than I can remember.

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 05:39 PM

My English Pointer almost shook a Bichon Frise puppy to death last fall, as said pup was running amuck and charged my dogs barking and growling. You've made a gross assumption about a dog's propensity to kill based on breed, since technically, my Simon should classified as "dangerously aggressive" according to that statement.

If you met Simon on the street, you'd get that exact response from both him and my Shepherd/Chow mix Peaches. You'd never guess that he darn near killed another dog.

I certainly agree that dog aggressive dogs come in many breeds. I don't know the specifics of your pointer's attack on the bichon puppy, but if it was aggressive, (you seem to be saying it was defensive, and that he was "charged" by the puppy) I'd say that your dog doesn't have a proper pointer temperament. That isn't a crime, and it doesn't mean you can't love him, it just means that he shouldn't be bred. REsponsible pointer breeders would not breed a pointer who was dog aggressive, because pointers in the field need to be able to work cooperatively with a bracemate (often another unneutered male) whom they have never met before. They also should ignore small critters who might run in front of their noses, in favor of finding and pointing (not trying to catch and kill even then) birds. Dog aggression is a completely negative trait in a pointer, as it is in every breed. (The only possible exception I can think of is livestock guarding dogs). The difference is that responsible pointer breeders know that dog aggression is a negative trait. Pit bull breeders? Um...discouragingly, a lot of them say it is "just part of the breed."

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 05:49 PM

there is not enough info about this story in the media........one heresay letter from a supposed victim,as i posted in another thread,show me actual proof this is definitely a pit and not has like characteristics or similar looks....again this so far is heresay about the breed...and to say a dog who is alittle sheepish towards a strangers first approach is an aggressive dog is ridicules,animals get nervous just like people.....and stress on a show dog must change on a show by show basis.

jawert1

September 18th, 2006, 05:58 PM

(you seem to be saying it was defensive, and that he was "charged" by the puppy) I'd say that your dog doesn't have a proper pointer temperament. That isn't a crime, and it doesn't mean you can't love him, it just means that he shouldn't be bred. REsponsible pointer breeders would not breed a pointer who was dog aggressive, because pointers in the field need to be able to work cooperatively with a bracemate (often another unneutered male) whom they have never met before. They also should ignore small critters who might run in front of their noses, in favor of finding and pointing (not trying to catch and kill even then) birds. Dog aggression is a completely negative trait in a pointer, as it is in every breed. (The only possible exception I can think of is livestock guarding dogs).

You're right, I am saying it was defensive because it was. He's fixed, so no worries about breeding there and since he's a rescue dog, I don't have all the facts about his breeding, but I do know his story and no, the abuse done to him has rendered him not right. My point to all of that is this:
1) many of these alleged "pitbulls" are not even pitbulls
2) you don't know the backstory of ANY dog unless it's been your own from puppyhood

I've seen other threads where you've quoted "statistics", unfortunately, most of these are assumptions and suppositions on your part, and not actually backed up by any reputable sources. I'd love to see this:
The difference is that responsible pointer breeders know that dog aggression is a negative trait. Pit bull breeders? Um...discouragingly, a lot of them say it is "just part of the breed."

quantified with some statistically significant number other than "I don't have the info off the top of my head"

As wdawson put it, all the facts are not in, and per my story and point, no dog can be judged solely on it's breed, nor can that single judgement become a breed standard and grounds for a ban or bash.

OntarioGreys

September 18th, 2006, 06:08 PM

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression

For crying out loud, that has nothing to do with temperament, it is call instinct, the same reason birds fly south for the winter. Natural instinct for a dog is to chase and kill prey, in some dogs that instinct is stronger than in other, it can't simply be bred out, I had 2 greyhound that bother spent a couple years on the track, they both share some of the same ancestors in their pedigree, one has a strong prey drive the other had no interest in chasing live animals but her sister did. Most dogs are not going to know the difference between a cat and rabbit unless they were raised around cats. My dogs know the cats in the house are part of their pack and they learned to accept them as such, but if a stray cat came into my yard and it started running the dogs would chase and attempt to kill it , not knowing what it is from a distance to them it would be simply prey. and one of the current 2 of mine is extremely shy and sensitive she will run and hide from a toddler and the other loves kids and will let little tot look in his mouth and lay on him.

And my 27 lb eskie with also chase and try to killed animals, she has caught birds and even managed to get hold of a full grown rabbit in the yard but was unable to hold it and she also is afraid of toddlers to the point of avoiding them rather than running and hiding, having a prey instinct does not mean a dog will go after people, Even my mom's shih tzu used to chase after rabbits and cats that were bigger than her.

pitgrrl

September 18th, 2006, 07:15 PM

Cygnet, I really must respectfully disagree with many of your points, and I do so as an owner of two pitbull crosses who would love to see the day when people stop crossing the street to avoid me, who's dog's have only ever had to fight for couch space and who's never allowed their dogs to hurt a fly, as much as they'd love to chase down all the cats in the area.

Most dogs aren't going to kill other domesticated animals. People who own dogs who have the propensity to kill other people's pets should understand that most other people don't see a dog who kills their pet as "nature taking it's course." They see that as a dangerously aggressive animal who has just killed one of their family members.

Although I have the deepest sympathy for those who have ever lost a pet, especially due to other's negligent behavior, I actually see it as a problem that we have so lost touch with the fact that our "fur babies" are, in fact, still animals, that we would be horrified at any expression of their instincts. Dogs are dogs, they hunt, rollin dead stuff, lick thier butts when guests are over, and in the attempt to live with them in very populated urban areas, we should not forget that they are what they are, even while we act responsibly and keep them out of trouble.

High levels of aggression directed at domestic animals is a temperament flaw. It should be no more acceptable for a pit bull breeder to breed a pit bull with killer levels of dog (or cat) aggression because "it's just part of the breed" than it is for a golden retriever breeder to breed a golden retriever with hip dysplasia because "it's just part of the breed" . At least there aren't any golden retriever breeders who are breeding FOR hip dysplasia. Unfortunately we can't say the same about pit bull breeders and dangerous levels of dog aggression.

Prey drive is not a temperment flaw, and in the breed in question, as with many others, neither is dog aggression. In pitbulls neither speaks to the stability of the dog's temperment in regards to people, and are manageable with some training and effort on the part of the owner. One of my dogs is extremely prey driven and is dog aggressive. We live in an very busy area, yet he has never so much as laid a paw on a cat and is trained to ignore passing dogs. Although I don't love the fact that he would love to chase cats and fight with other dogs, it would be a sad day, to me, when we would start producing dogs with no drive to do anything because they're easier for John Q Public to own with little effort.

If pit bull people want to serve pit bulls, they should stop thinking that people who object to the temperament flaw of animal aggression are unfairly "bashing" pit bulls and think of ways to eliminate it (at least among pit bulls not bred for fighting--obviously there is a huge contingent of pit bull breeders who LIKE animal aggression). A good place to start would be to make dog aggression a disqualification in the AKC AmStaff and staffordshire bull terrier standards and in the UKC American pit bull standard. Think of how much GOOD would come if these standards added a "Temperament" section that read:

"A gushingly friendly temperament is characteristic of the breed. Dogs should wag their tails enthusiastically upon being approached by the judge (or any other human being). A dog who moves slightly because he is wiggling with happiness upon being touched should not be faulted, but a dog who is aloof or uninterested in the judge is not displaying proper temperament and shall be faulted accordingly. A dog who displays any degree shyness whatsoever shall not place. A dog who displays any aggression toward any person in the ring shall be disqualified. While American Staffordshire terriers was historically known as dog aggressive, dog aggression is completely incompatible with the modern role of the American Staffordshire terrier as a working companion animal. Consequently, any AmStaff who shows any dog aggression in the ring shall be disqualified."

Think of the GOOD publicity that this would give "pit bulls" when the television announcer at Westminster says every year "AmStaffs and Staffordshire bull terriers are the only two breeds where failure to wag their tail at, and be happy to see, the judge is a fault." People would start to see pit bulls as FRIENDLY dogs (which they properly should be) rather than as menacing dogs.

So you've just described a pitbull, minus dog aggression. Again, I'm not really arguing for dog aggression, but rather for drive in general. I love my dog's drive, they put it into almost everything they do. Why would I want that watered down? The same thing that makes them want to chase cats can be channelled into more appropriate behaviors, and frankly, it's awsome when you accomplish that. If one doesn't like that kind of dog, or isn't prepared to deal with all that comes along with responsibly owning one, why not just get another breed?
Why should those who enjoy having drivey dogs, of whatever specific breed, be denied that becuase other's find the idea of chasing a squirrle up a tree distasteful?

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 07:19 PM

I've seen other threads where you've quoted "statistics", unfortunately, most of these are assumptions and suppositions on your part, and not actually backed up by any reputable sources. I'd love to see this:

quantified with some statistically significant number other than "I don't have the info off the top of my head"

As wdawson put it, all the facts are not in, and per my story and point, no dog can be judged solely on it's breed, nor can that single judgement become a breed standard and grounds for a ban or bash.

Statistics? Well, we absolutely know that lots and lots of pit bull breeders breed for dog aggression, don't we? For dog fighters, (and wannabe dog fighters, which may even be a bigger group) dog aggression (and "gameness" which means attacking without provocation and not stopping until somebody is dead) is pretty much the ONLY trait that they breed for.

But I don't see anything approaching a concensus in even the "responsible" pit bull community that dog aggression is a temperament flaw and needs to be bred away from. Go here: http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833 None of these people are dog fighters. The general feeling is that dog aggression is just part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. Unfortunately, it is also a big part of what makes so many pit bulls (and sometimes other dogs) dead.

Another more recent poll on the same website asks about two hypothetical dogs, and asks which dog, if either, should be bred. One is a working, dog aggressive dog. The other is a show dog without the temperament flaw of dog aggression. Most people say that neither dog should be bred, and they give a variety of reasons, but hardly anybody says that dog aggression is a reason not to breed the working dog. (18% currently say it is fine to breed the working dog). Several specifically say that dog aggression should not be considered as a factor.

If you can direct me to any pit bull bulletin board anywhere where pit bull people agree that they shouldn't be breeding dogs that are dog aggressive, I would be very interested to see it. At most, it seems to me that a few responsible people timidly point out that dog aggression is a horribly negative trait and they ought to be working to eliminate it, but they are immediately shot down by blowhards who say that it is part of the breed.

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 07:21 PM

If you can direct me to any pit bull bulletin board anywhere where pit bull people agree that they shouldn't be breeding dogs that are dog aggressive,How about this one?

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 07:23 PM

well said pitgrrl

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 07:24 PM

[QUOTE=OntarioGreys]For crying out loud, that has nothing to do with temperament, it is call instinct, the same reason birds fly south for the winter. Natural instinct for a dog is to chase and kill prey, in some dogs that instinct is stronger than in other, it can't simply be bred out, QUOTE]

I certainly agree that this discussion is muddling up prey drive and dog aggression and they are two separate things. I happen to believe that some dogs who kill cats are actually cat aggressive, NOT just "prey driven" but I agree that it is hard to figure out which an individual dog is, especially when it comes to cats. Plenty of dogs are dog aggressive in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with prey drive.

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 07:28 PM

None of this has to do with my original post, IMO.

pitgrrl

September 18th, 2006, 07:28 PM

Go here: http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833 None of these people are dog fighters. The general feeling is that dog aggression is just part of what makes a pit bull a pit bull. Unfortunately, it is also a big part of what makes so many pit bulls (and sometimes other dogs) dead.

That thread is discussing rescue, pitbull rescue, so it would seem somewhat dillusional to believe one could only work with completely cold dogs. Dog agression has nothing to do with the tempermental stability of a dog and especially if you are focusing your efforts on a breed that is typically DA, one needs to accept it, be responsible about it and move on. It is competely manageable if training and time is put into the dog.

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 07:35 PM

cygnet

welcome
its about time we had a professional on this board, i mean an animal behavioral analyst , a registered akc expert and a breed identification expert all in one........our lucky day.

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 07:43 PM

Cygnet, I really must respectfully disagree with many of your points, and I do so as an owner of two pitbull crosses who would love to see the day when people stop crossing the street to avoid me, who's dog's have only ever had to fight for couch space and who's never allowed their dogs to hurt a fly, as much as they'd love to chase down all the cats in the area.

Although I have the deepest sympathy for those who have ever lost a pet, especially due to other's negligent behavior, I actually see it as a problem that we have so lost touch with the fact that our "fur babies" are, in fact, still animals, that we would be horrified at any expression of their instincts. Dogs are dogs, they hunt, rollin dead stuff, lick thier butts when guests are over, and in the attempt to live with them in very populated urban areas, we should not forget that they are what they are, even while we act responsibly and keep them out of trouble.

Prey drive is not a temperment flaw, and in the breed in question, as with many others, neither is dog aggression. In pitbulls neither speaks to the stability of the dog's temperment in regards to people, and are manageable with some training and effort on the part of the owner. One of my dogs is extremely prey driven and is dog aggressive. We live in an very busy area, yet he has never so much as laid a paw on a cat and is trained to ignore passing dogs. Although I don't love the fact that he would love to chase cats and fight with other dogs, it would be a sad day, to me, when we would start producing dogs with no drive to do anything because they're easier for John Q Public to own with little effort.

So you've just described a pitbull, minus dog aggression. Again, I'm not really arguing for dog aggression, but rather for drive in general. I love my dog's drive, they put it into almost everything they do. Why would I want that watered down? The same thing that makes them want to chase cats can be channelled into more appropriate behaviors, and frankly, it's awsome when you accomplish that. If one doesn't like that kind of dog, or isn't prepared to deal with all that comes along with responsibly owning one, why not just get another breed?
Why should those who enjoy having drivey dogs, of whatever specific breed, be denied that becuase other's find the idea of chasing a squirrle up a tree distasteful?

I don't "find the idea of chasing a squirrel up a tree distasteful." I find the notion that I might find myself living next door to one of the ten percent of pit bulls (according to this poll of RESPONSIBLE pit bull owners http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833 )whose dogs want to "kill every other dog on sight" slightly worrisomel, though. Wouldn't you? It doesn't make me feel better for you to tell me to "just get another breed" since I am not worried about the dog I get. I am worried about the dog my neighbor gets and its capacity and desire to kill my dogs.

I realize that (in most cases) it takes a screwup for a dog to kill another dog. But most of us are human and we DO screwup. And if you doubt that lots and lots of pit bull owners are at least as apt to screw up as other dog owners, take a trip to death row of the nearest urban shelter and you will see all the living (at least until their time is up) evidence of pit bull owner irresponsibility.

I love high drive dogs. (I have one). But I don't agree with the notion that aggression=drive. Some of the highest drive dogs I know are field bred labradors. They love to work, they don't quit and they are TOTALLY non aggressive toward man or beast. I know plenty of aggressive, sometimes dangerous, low drive dogs (many akitas and chows fit that description) as well.

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 07:54 PM

That thread is discussing rescue, pitbull rescue, so it would seem somewhat dillusional to believe one could only work with completely cold dogs. Dog agression has nothing to do with the tempermental stability of a dog and especially if you are focusing your efforts on a breed that is typically DA, one needs to accept it, be responsible about it and move on. It is competely manageable if training and time is put into the dog.

Who said "that thread is discussing rescue?" I didn't see that anywhere. Lots of people on that board have rescued pit bulls, lots of them have pit bulls from breeders. And, actually, some rescues DO only rescue non-dog aggressive pit bulls. This, sadly, means that they put down a whole lot of pit bulls.

Sorry, but I disagree that dog aggression is "completely managable." Accidents happen. Even the most responsible dog owner in the world can have a dog get loose. I would wager that everybody or nearly everybody on this board has had a dog get loose at some time in his/her life. (The source of this belief: I was at a seminar of 200 highly responsible dog people, and the speaker asked how many in the audience had never had a dog get loose--ONE person raised her hand. If that is typical, we can say that 99.5% of RESPONSIBLE dog owners have had a loose dog at some point).

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 08:00 PM

Ok, can you discuss a thread on another board ON the other board? That is not what the intention of this thread was about. This is called "threadjacking".:mad: (and beating the dead horse over and over)

BMDLuver

September 18th, 2006, 08:00 PM

I realize that (in most cases) it takes a screwup for a dog to kill another dog. But most of us are human and we DO screwup. And if you doubt that lots and lots of pit bull owners are at least as apt to screw up as other dog owners, take a trip to death row of the nearest urban shelter and you will see all the living (at least until their time is up) evidence of pit bull owner irresponsibility.

I'll address this first then wade through the rest.

Define screwup?

Is it the husky who has spent his last two years living next door to a bichon and had playdates with it, who then picks it up while everyone is sitting around having drinks and devours it before it can be saved? Is that a screwup?

Is it the Bouvier des Flandes who lived with cats for 5 years then one day decided to shred the two cats to death while the owner was at work?

Is it the Great Pyrenese who decides after having the same dogsitter for two years to attack and scar the dogsitter for life?

Is it the Golden Retriever who bit the toddlers nose off after having lived with children for 5 years through all ages?

All known dogs, all considered well adjusted dogs, not rescues,from topnotch breeders not fight breeders. None screwups IMHO.

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 08:07 PM

Sorry, Prin, but when people ask for "statistics," one is likely going to have to cite to sources outside this board.

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 08:08 PM

your right most of us are human and do screw up..........see what happened in montreal this past week........do we ban all goths........we already have a gun registry.......and that really helped........ban assault weapons....single shot weapons are much easier to control:rolleyes: ban all smith & wesson guns and allow all others , cause smith & wesson where the gun of choice of 80% of all incidents. ban all ford suv's they tend to roll over the most......your logic seems way out in left field to me.....in my opinion.
if you can back up your credentials as to your expertice on all topics you involve yourself in that would be great.......i notice that you never post in any thread that has a posative theme.

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 08:10 PM

Sorry, Prin, but when people ask for "statistics," one is likely going to have to cite to sources outside this board.
Yeah, but that wasn't the case about that website. I would just rather this stay on topic and not become a discussion about how other pitbull boards say this and that. (And forums are not great for references by the way)

K9Friend

September 18th, 2006, 08:10 PM

This is probably one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a while. :D

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 08:12 PM

I don't know how you can say that- it's turning into a thread I saw last week.:rolleyes:

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 08:13 PM

I'll address this first then wade through the rest.

Define screwup?

Is it the husky who has spent his last two years living next door to a bichon and had playdates with it, who then picks it up while everyone is sitting around having drinks and devours it before it can be saved? Is that a screwup?

Is it the Bouvier des Flandes who lived with cats for 5 years then one day decided to shred the two cats to death while the owner was at work?

Is it the Great Pyrenese who decides after having the same dogsitter for two years to attack and scar the dogsitter for life?

Is it the Golden Retriever who bit the toddlers nose off after having lived with children for 5 years through all ages?

All known dogs, all considered well adjusted dogs, not rescues,from topnotch breeders not fight breeders. None screwups IMHO.

I actually agree with (what I think is) your point, BMDlover. Some people claim that dogs NEVER are dangerously aggressive without giving plenty of warning first. The notion is that the owner is either lying about the dog's previous signs of aggression or was completely oblivious to signs that any reasonable person would have seen. I don't think that this is true. I think (as your examples show) that for some dogs the first sign of a serious temperament problem is a serious, dangerous (and sometimes deadly) attack.

In the vast majority of cases, however, I do think that dogs don't kill other dogs without letting their owners know that they are capable of, and intending to do it, however.

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 08:15 PM

no kidding prin

pitgrrl

September 18th, 2006, 08:19 PM

I don't "find the idea of chasing a squirrel up a tree distasteful." I find the notion that I might find myself living next door to one of the ten percent of pit bulls (according to this poll of RESPONSIBLE pit bull owners http://www.pitbulltalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833 )whose dogs want to "kill every other dog on sight" slightly worrisomel, though. Wouldn't you? It doesn't make me feel better for you to tell me to "just get another breed" since I am not worried about the dog I get. I am worried about the dog my neighbor gets and its capacity and desire to kill my dogs.

I realize that (in most cases) it takes a screwup for a dog to kill another dog. But most of us are human and we DO screwup. And if you doubt that lots and lots of pit bull owners are at least as apt to screw up as other dog owners, take a trip to death row of the nearest urban shelter and you will see all the living (at least until their time is up) evidence of pit bull owner irresponsibility.

I love high drive dogs. (I have one). But I don't agree with the notion that aggression=drive. Some of the highest drive dogs I know are field bred labradors. They love to work, they don't quit and they are TOTALLY non aggressive toward man or beast. I know plenty of aggressive, sometimes dangerous, low drive dogs (many akitas and chows fit that description) as well.

I'm in no way equating dog aggression with drive or vice versa, but I am catagorizing them similarily in so much as they are management issues. If you think you might screw up, put things in place as back up. It's not like dog aggression means your dog turns into the Hulk and can rip through cement and metal to get at another dog, it just means you need to deal with your dog accordingly.

Frankly, I'm not worried about my neighbour's dogs, I worry about my neighbours, and people in general's, ability to take on responsibility. I don't see how dog aggression is resoponsible for all the pitbulls rotting away in shelters, to me it's clear that that fact rest on the shoulders of humans who failed to step up and deal with their dogs.

To get back on topic here, I think that letter to the Gazette is just a manifestation of alot of what we're debating here. It posits pitbulls as these unpredictable beasts of super canine strengh who want nothing more than to kill. The real issue, to me, is a clearly irresponsible owner who allowed their dog to be in a position where a totally natural and expected drive would cause harm. It seems like the most predictable, and therefore manageable, thing in the world that a dog would chase and kill a cat if given the opportunity, so the warning by the author should not be about a dangerous dog, but rather about a dangerously irresponsible owner.

wdawson

September 18th, 2006, 08:22 PM

i still want to see total proof it was a pit.....and not a similar looking dog

jawert1

September 18th, 2006, 08:22 PM

Sorry, Prin, but when people ask for "statistics," one is likely going to have to cite to sources outside this board.

And that includes you Cygnet, you are not exempt from having facts and numbers to back up your claims of "expertise". You've done nothing but bait and antagonize with bad information for awhile now, jumping in where you deem it necessary to pick a fight.

and that equals just HOW many individuals? HOW MANY in the overall population in Ontario? HOW MANY in the overall population in CANADA? HOW MANY in the population of the Eastern Hemisphere?

Do tell Cygnet, live up to what you just claimed everyone else has to do in order to pass your standards.

BMDLuver

September 18th, 2006, 09:10 PM

Relating to this original topic... there was also something in the news and chronicle last week about a pit that wandered on to the next door neighbours lawn.. I'll try to find the article as she wants the breed banned in Pointe Claire and there's going to be a town council discussion about it. You can bet there will be many there to make sure a ban does not take place. PB of the SPCA really helped the cause as well with his ridiculous comment. :rolleyes:

Prohibit pit bulls, resident pleads
No ban: McMurchie
BY WENDY SMITH

The Chronicle

A woman who witnessed her neighbours’ pit bull allegedly roaming without a leash wants that breed banned in Pointe Claire.

“I’m just trying to be proactive here,” said Dee Davidson. “I don’t need the money I would win from a lawsuit after the fact when my grandson’s face is ripped open.”

According to Davidson, the neighbour told her the dog had bit someone six months ago but not to worry because he wouldn’t do it again.

“I thought, perhaps I could speak with the psychiatric veterinarian who gave you that analysis. Or maybe he put his paw on a Bible,” Davidson quipped.

Diane Caron, the owner of the one-year-old pit bull, Ringo, said not only are the allegations completely false, Davidson also never spoke to them about her concerns.

“He never bit anybody,” said Caron, who took over ownership of Ringo in July, after her husband’s daughter became too busy to take care of him. “He never hurt anyone. He’s like a baby. He comes and cuddles with us; he puts his head against my heart as if he’s listening to the beat of my heart. He’s more like a cat than a dog.”

Caron confessed she’s not much of a dog lover but has never had any problems with Ringo. Neither have her own children, who looked after him while she and her husband were away on vacation. She pointed to a “general misunderstanding” that feeds people’s fear of the breed.

While the executive director of Montreal’s Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals admits that even he’s not particularly fond of pit bulls, Pierre Barnoti maintains that “saying because they scare me, every pit bull is an aggressive dog, would be nonsense.” He’d rather see legislation prohibiting the breeding and training of killer dogs.

“Not all dogs are aggressive, but they can become aggressive if you show them how. And the real crime is when a human makes an aggressive animal out of a dog,” he said.

“What amazes me is that today you can call a company and rent an aggressive dog — whether it’s a pit bull, a German shepherd, a Doberman, whatever — and put it into your lumber yard or your car lot, when alarms and security are so developed that you don’t need a dog to be a killer.”

Ringo is always on a leash when Caron takes him out for walks, doesn’t bark at people and stays close, she said. “He’s not the kind of dog who would wander off.”

Davidson isn’t so sure. “Children are unpredictable; they squeal,” she said. “When you look at all the factors, it’s a bit like Russian roulette.”

After approaching Pointe Claire city council with her concerns at its Aug. 18 meeting, Davidson is compiling a list of municipalities on the island of Montreal that prohibit aggressive dogs.

Mayor Bill McMurchie said council would go through the process of determining whether to legislate a ban once she presents that list.

“I don’t know what the decision of council will be,” he said, “but I can tell you the last time we did that exercise, we didn’t ban dogs by breed. It’s evident, even to politicians, that there is more than one breed of dog which can be

aggressive.”

A ban wouldn’t work, and it would lead to a slippery slope, Barnoti cautioned. “Eventually we’re going to forbid Chihuahuas. We’ll remain with the fleas and no dog.”

But, Davidson maintains, pit bulls are dangerous enough to warrant a ban. “I realize a lot of people have pit bulls that are probably wonderful dogs, and they may get a bad rep by association, but statistics don’t lie. If it were a collie, I probably never would have called.”

Cygnet

September 18th, 2006, 09:14 PM

And that includes you Cygnet, you are not exempt from having facts and numbers to back up your claims of "expertise". You've done nothing but bait and antagonize with bad information for awhile now, jumping in where you deem it necessary to pick a fight.

and that equals just HOW many individuals? HOW MANY in the overall population in Ontario? HOW MANY in the overall population in CANADA? HOW MANY in the population of the Eastern Hemisphere?

Do tell Cygnet, live up to what you just claimed everyone else has to do in order to pass your standards.

Uh, you misunderstood, jawart. I was being criticized for backing up what I said with an independent source. In the quote you posted, I was just responding to that criticism by pointing out that one really has to cite to independent sources when one is asked for "statistics."

As to how many dog fighters there are in Toronto, or Canada, or in the "eastern hemisphere," (huh?) I don't know. I know it is a big problem and lots of dogs are dying. Here is one shelter's statistics: http://www.hudsonreporter.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17204500&BRD=1291&PAG=461&dept_id=523586&rfi=6

Note that 65% of the dogs they get in are pit bulls or pit bull mixes, and 60% of those are deemed aggressive. 20% showed physical signs of fighting or neglect. How can any pit bull person read figures like this and not be horrified? I'm not even a pit bull person, and they horrify me.

As to whether I am trying "to pick a fight," it is pretty much my experience that if anybody tries to talk to pit bull people about changing anything (except of course, that the media has to change and start only reporting GOOD pit bull stories) , they immediately react with defensiveness and self-pity and calls for censorship. Given the horrible state of pit bull suffering out there and the breed bans being proposed and passed in increasing numbers of places, you'd think that they would be open to discussing ANY ideas. (require spay/neuter for non-show pit bulls? Why not? Change the breed standard to make dog aggression a disqualification? Good idea). Or at least they would want to politely discuss why they think it isn't a good idea. After all, I LIKE pit bulls and don't want to see them banned everywhere. If they can't deal with me without getting defensive and calling for censorship, how are they going to deal with people who, frankly, don't have any use for pit bulls?

seeker

September 18th, 2006, 09:16 PM

I don't know how you can say that- it's turning into a thread I saw last week.:rolleyes:

Yeah, the one that got closed and I see this one heading in the same direction.

technodoll

September 18th, 2006, 09:20 PM

what i STILL don't understand and would love to know is... how did the dog get into the house/appartment in the first place? was the old cat hiding under the couch and the dog pulled it out? was it lying on the floor? how did the dog know there was a cat there? who lets a DOG wander into their home anyways? :eek:

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 09:23 PM

And how long was the dog holding the cat in its mouth- I mean the cops aren't too quick about dog things in Montreal... I highly doubt it stayed vicious for a half hour or whatever without calming down.

pitgrrl

September 18th, 2006, 09:43 PM

what i STILL don't understand and would love to know is... how did the dog get into the house/appartment in the first place? was the old cat hiding under the couch and the dog pulled it out? was it lying on the floor? how did the dog know there was a cat there? who lets a DOG wander into their home anyways? :eek:

Good questions really, and to add another, is that seriously what passes as a letter to the editor? I don't get why they even printed it?

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 09:46 PM

They print anything in the Gazette these days. It's a few months away from becoming a full out tabloid.

pitgrrl

September 18th, 2006, 09:55 PM

They print anything in the Gazette these days. It's a few months away from becoming a full out tabloid.

Aww, I knew there was a reason I didn't read the Gazette. I sent them a letter, but who know's if they'll actually publish it.

Note that 65% of the dogs they get in are pit bulls or pit bull mixes, and 60% of those are deemed aggressive. 20% showed physical signs of fighting or neglect. How can any pit bull person read figures like this and not be horrified? I'm not even a pit bull person, and they horrify me.

What does it mean to be deemed "aggressive" ? Human aggressive? Dog aggressive? What type of temperment testing are they using? What kind of breed knowledge does the person administering these tests have?

It's truely a sad state of affairs, but still, to my mind, a problem with people, not the dogs.

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 09:59 PM

I'm not even a pit bull person, and they horrify me. Umm. It makes sense that you are afraid of something you know nothing about. :shrug: Some people choose to learn as much as they can about the things they fear to try to rationalize it. ;)

i must say something though. as the owner of a dog-aggressive breed (it's even in the AKC standard...), we did our research before we got the dog and agreed that if our boy ever became what he was supposed to be by genetic predisposition (the stuff that no training can remove, such as prey-drive), then we would be prepared to deal with it and change our lifestyle to accomodate his character.

Dakotah's personality & tolerance towards other dominant male dogs has drastically changed the past few months, to the point where now we can say "darn he's really an akita now" :cool: BUT we knew to expect it, every breeder worth their salt would say it's normal. We are extremely careful not to put him or any other dog in confrontational situations, and that means not letting him loose at the dog park unless there are only females present and holding him very close and tight when crossing other male dogs on walks. He's under "lock and key" so to speak. Can an accident ever happen? Of course. Nobody is immune, that's why they are called accidents. That doesn't make us irresponsible owners though.

So we have one dog-aggressive akita (note that it is dominant male-specific aggression, if the male is submissive there is no issue) with a very low prey-drive, and a super friendly "love all dogs" akita with a VERY high prey-drive, who if given the chance would rip a bird, squirrel, rat or cat to pieces. Does that make either of my dogs viscious, or a danger to humans? Absolutely not. It just forces us to be better guardians to make sure society never points a finger at them for being "dogs" and doing what comes naturally to them for their breed & individual personality: one is to fight for Top Dog Status, the other is to Hunt for prey :pawprint:

Prin

September 18th, 2006, 10:38 PM

True. My dogs chase squirrels and cats and that in no way means they are going to go after a kid. They never have, and probably never will. They love kids. One and the other are just not the same.

K9Friend

September 19th, 2006, 04:40 AM

Yeah, the one that got closed and I see this one heading in the same direction.

sorry, i must have missed it.

Cygnet

September 19th, 2006, 06:42 AM

i must say something though. as the owner of a dog-aggressive breed (it's even in the AKC standard...), we did our research before we got the dog and agreed that if our boy ever became what he was supposed to be by genetic predisposition (the stuff that no training can remove, such as prey-drive), then we would be prepared to deal with it and change our lifestyle to accomodate his character.

Dakotah's personality & tolerance towards other dominant male dogs has drastically changed the past few months, to the point where now we can say "darn he's really an akita now" :cool: BUT we knew to expect it, every breeder worth their salt would say it's normal. We are extremely careful not to put him or any other dog in confrontational situations, and that means not letting him loose at the dog park unless there are only females present and holding him very close and tight when crossing other male dogs on walks. He's under "lock and key" so to speak. Can an accident ever happen? Of course. Nobody is immune, that's why they are called accidents. That doesn't make us irresponsible owners though.

So we have one dog-aggressive akita (note that it is dominant male-specific aggression, if the male is submissive there is no issue) with a very low prey-drive, and a super friendly "love all dogs" akita with a VERY high prey-drive, who if given the chance would rip a bird, squirrel, rat or cat to pieces. Does that make either of my dogs viscious, or a danger to humans? Absolutely not. It just forces us to be better guardians to make sure society never points a finger at them for being "dogs" and doing what comes naturally to them for their breed & individual personality: one is to fight for Top Dog Status, the other is to Hunt for prey :pawprint:

Are you irresponsible for owning a dog aggressive akita? I don't think so. He is what he is and the best you can do about his dangerousness is to manage it as responsibly as you can, which you obviously are. But I think that the akita community is irresponsible for calling for dog aggression in the akita standard. Dog aggression is a totally, 100% negative trait. It contributes absolutely nothing to an akita's ability to do any work an akita might do, including being a companion, and in fact is a huge detriment to that. Is life "under lock and key" the best that Dakotah can have, under the circumstances? Yes. Is it the best he should have? I don't think so.

The trait of dog aggression is a huge reason why so many akitas die in shelters. Wouldn't you rather that Dakoteh could get along with other male dogs? If he progresses (as he very well may) to the point where he can't get along with any other dog and can't go to the dog park at all, is that okay with you? What if his dog aggression progresses (less likely, but possible) to the point where he doesn't get along with your bitch and you have to keep them separated 100% of the time? Dog aggression restricts the lives of dogs who have it. It adds NOTHING to their lives. It is sort of like having a dog with hip dysplasia. You would deal with it if you got one, but (if you are a responsible puppy breeder or puppy buyer), you would do everything in your power to avoid producing or having a dog with it.

Akitas tend to be dog aggressive for exactly the same reason that pit bulls tend to be. That is, they were historically (and, in the case of pit bulls, often still are) bred for dog fighting and since then, breeders have put their own needs over that of the needs of the breed and have continued to breed dogs who were dangerous toward other dogs. It is important to note that in neither breed, is the level of dog aggression something that "comes naturally." It was consciously bred for by human beings. To be fair, I have had akita breeders tell me that responsible akita breeders ignore the standard and breed away from dog aggression. I have also heard the opposite, however. It is certainly accurate to say that temperament is a Big Issue with akitas. Anybody who is paying attention knows that lots and lots of them die because of serious temperament issues. And sometimes they die after seriously injuring people or other dogs.

Cygnet

September 19th, 2006, 06:54 AM

Aww, I knew there was a reason I didn't read the Gazette. I sent them a letter, but who know's if they'll actually publish it.

What does it mean to be deemed "aggressive" ? Human aggressive? Dog aggressive? What type of temperment testing are they using? What kind of breed knowledge does the person administering these tests have?

It's truely a sad state of affairs, but still, to my mind, a problem with people, not the dogs.

Of course the "problem is with people." Nobody would say otherwise. Dogs only breed because people either encourage them to or allow them to. Responsibly owned, responsibly managed dogs don't produced litters of puppies that end up dying in shelters.

So, what, exactly would you propose to do about the "problem with people" that causes 65% of the dogs coming into this shelter to be pit bulls or pit bull mixes, 60% of whom are deemed aggressive? You can ask the pit bull community to try to be more responsible, but hasn't that already been tried? And the folks (described in the article) who are mostly breeding these throwaway pit bulls don't exactly seem to be the kind to listen to calls for responsibility, do they? So, what's next?

Puppyluv

September 19th, 2006, 07:24 AM

Sorry, Prin, but when people ask for "statistics," one is likely going to have to cite to sources outside this board.
A poll of a couple of dog owners isn't a very reliable "statistic" source. I reccomend that before you make the comments that you are, you find some REAL statistics, with REAL numbers. Don't give people a 'HUH?' to avoid answeing a question. You say you "know" this is a big problem, but how do you know it if you can't provide any sources outside of a random poll on a pet owners website???? You need to back your mouth up with something.

technodoll

September 19th, 2006, 08:48 AM

Are you irresponsible for owning a dog aggressive akita? I don't think so. He is what he is and the best you can do about his dangerousness is to manage it as responsibly as you can, which you obviously are. But I think that the akita community is irresponsible for calling for dog aggression in the akita standard. Dog aggression is a totally, 100% negative trait. It contributes absolutely nothing to an akita's ability to do any work an akita might do, including being a companion, and in fact is a huge detriment to that. Is life "under lock and key" the best that Dakotah can have, under the circumstances? Yes. Is it the best he should have? I don't think so.

the akita community is currently lobbying to get the AKC & CKC breed description changed from "Aggressive toward other dogs" to "Dominant toward other dogs". No responsible breeder in their right mind would breed for aggression, in fact I don't know of ANY who encourage this in the slightest, on the contrary. Most breeders Temperament Test their dogs. Akita breeders are very protective of their breed and nobody wants them on any BSL lists, trust me! Of course you always have the moron BYBs who don't give a crap about anything and breed whichever animal in their hands to make $... until we have laws in place that put these people in jail, we just have to deal with it. :frustrated:

The trait of dog aggression is a huge reason why so many akitas die in shelters. Wouldn't you rather that Dakoteh could get along with other male dogs? If he progresses (as he very well may) to the point where he can't get along with any other dog and can't go to the dog park at all, is that okay with you? What if his dog aggression progresses (less likely, but possible) to the point where he doesn't get along with your bitch and you have to keep them separated 100% of the time? Dog aggression restricts the lives of dogs who have it. It adds NOTHING to their lives. It is sort of like having a dog with hip dysplasia. You would deal with it if you got one, but (if you are a responsible puppy breeder or puppy buyer), you would do everything in your power to avoid producing or having a dog with it.

How do you know how many akitas die in shelters, and the reason they DO? :confused: are you an akita expert also? :confused: I would challenge you to back that up with proven numbers... The North American akita community I am involved in rescues and places hundreds of dogs each year and I can tell you, VERY FEW cannot be placed because of temperament issues. Some dogs, like in any other breed, do not tolerate other dogs or cats so they need to be the only dog in the family, but it's a fact of Canine life, not breed-specific in any way. And to suggest that Dakotah would get aggressive towards my girl down the road is absolutely ludicrous - you have no idea of dog pack behavior rules, do you? :eek: Did you also know that both my akitas form a "Pack" with my dogsitter's intact male pitbull, that they all eat in the same bowl at the same time, they all drink from the same water dish at the same time, they share treats and toys and cookies from each other's mouths and have NEVER EVER had a squabble? If you understood canine behavior, you would see that this is normal. However, enter a NEW dog in the house and all THREE dogs are on alert: who are you, and where will you try to be on the pack's totem pole?

Akitas tend to be dog aggressive for exactly the same reason that pit bulls tend to be. That is, they were historically (and, in the case of pit bulls, often still are) bred for dog fighting and since then, breeders have put their own needs over that of the needs of the breed and have continued to breed dogs who were dangerous toward other dogs. It is important to note that in neither breed, is the level of dog aggression something that "comes naturally." It was consciously bred for by human beings. To be fair, I have had akita breeders tell me that responsible akita breeders ignore the standard and breed away from dog aggression. I have also heard the opposite, however. It is certainly accurate to say that temperament is a Big Issue with akitas. Anybody who is paying attention knows that lots and lots of them die because of serious temperament issues. And sometimes they die after seriously injuring people or other dogs.

so we now have both an akita and a pitbull expert on our board. :D i suppose you own both breeds too, and can see in their daily lives how things really are? you belong to both akita and pitbull communities and have been actively involved in the breed, and rescue, and training, and pet therapy, etc for many years? hmmm? bah, why waste more keyboard time on this... those who know me & my dogs know what i meant in my original post. for the rest who spew fictional nonsense.... :troll: !!!

pitgrrl

September 19th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Of course the "problem is with people." Nobody would say otherwise. Dogs only breed because people either encourage them to or allow them to. Responsibly owned, responsibly managed dogs don't produced litters of puppies that end up dying in shelters.

So, what, exactly would you propose to do about the "problem with people" that causes 65% of the dogs coming into this shelter to be pit bulls or pit bull mixes, 60% of whom are deemed aggressive? You can ask the pit bull community to try to be more responsible, but hasn't that already been tried? And the folks (described in the article) who are mostly breeding these throwaway pit bulls don't exactly seem to be the kind to listen to calls for responsibility, do they? So, what's next?

Again, what does it mean to be deemed "aggressive"? The types of temperment tests used in many shelters would fail a dog for showing high prey drive or dog aggression. To me, neither of these traits should be labled as generic aggression. If a dog is highly fearful, shows signs of human aggression, etc. than by all means, give the dog a great day, some love, and then do the responsible thing and cull. But, if the dog is simply displaying traits that are typical of the breed, and is a good stable dog that could flourish in the hands of a responsible owners, why deem the dog unadoptable?

Frankly, I think you are underestimating the amount of work people do with in the pitbull communitee. Unfortunatley, there is a huge problem of BYB and a mentality of animals being disposable, but don't think for a minute people don't dedicate their lives to trying to clean up that mess. Are you aware of the various rescues, educational programs, training programs, cheap or free spay/neuter initiatives etc?
Perhaps if the plight of pitbulls is weighing so heavy on you, you could look into getting involved or starting up similar programs in your area, rather than sitting back and critizing the breed and it's communities.

babyrocky1

September 19th, 2006, 11:51 AM

:confused:

Cygnet what is your motivation here? I really dont get it, I have to work and dont have time to go through all of your posts point by point AGAIN!

Let me tell you straight up that I dont know much at ALL about "pure bred dogs"

Heres what Ill give you...I dont see why breeders of dog aggressive DOGS cant breed away from dog aggression, ofcourse I dont see it as a positive trait but from what little I do know about breed standards is that all breeds are bred as close to their origins as possible. It seems to me that all though the physical characteristics would be maintained and especially with "pitties" the temperment with children and adults would be maintained, that dog agression in any breed would be seen as a negative. However, if thats possible, then your fight is with the dog breeders, AKC, CKC etc. Why come here and constantly attack us whom you not so lovingly describe as "pit bull people" when it should be obvious to any idiot that none of us breed our dogs not do we advocate it...( our dogs are all spayed and nuetered and would have been or were before the law)

Any one of us on this board would be devastated should our dogs ever hurt another living thing! Including a squirrel or a rabit.

We have proposed very positive alternative legislation and amendemts to deal with the legitmate concerns of public safety regarding dogs.
You may not glean this out of r ecent posts because that was all done two years ago when this whole thing started.

Since then we have been fighting politically, legally, and either spending alot of time actually dealing with the enormous amount of rescue work,or supporting the people who do, socializing our existing dogs, getting dogs out to more "friendly" provinces as well as trying to keep the spirits of one another high to get through this thing.

So once again, I will ask you why you continue to post all of this negativity about our alleged "
"pitties"...Is your fight not with the breed clubs...ask them these questions.
Again...I know nothing about breeding dogs so if someone can clarify the goings on of breed standards and possible answer Cygnets question about breeding away from dog aggression I would be most grateful cause I dont see any other legitimate points..and Im not sure this is either. (there is still the argument of nature and nurture)

This part of the board has been functioning very well as a place where positive ideas to help our dogs have become reality and I would hate to see it change to a place where we end up spending all of our time defending ourselves YET AGAIN !

Cygnet, please read Hansard...that is where all the testimony is on all of this and you will see what we are up against and what positive suggestions the passionate and the educated "pit bull People" gave to the committee who was stacked against us from the start.

Can some one please post the link to Hansard...?
Or Cygnet you can search them here if you are so inclined.
I made sure to attend and most everyone else has read the whole four days of it so I was surprised and saddened to see that there are a few folks on the board who think that we are simply against the ban and have no solutions...we have too many for me to go into again.
Another thing you might like to do is research the "Dangerous dog laws in Calgary!
Calgarys laws were held up during the hearings as an example of good Public Safety as well as animal safety during the hearings. Its all here on the site!
We also have a petition asking for proper laws and suggesting it to be named Courtneys Law in honour of a young Ontario girl who was killed by a dog that was NOT a Pit bull and whoes mother testified AGAINST BSL at the committee hearings and tearfully wondered why the 33 reccomendations of an Ontario coroners inquest were all but ignored!

Schwinn

September 19th, 2006, 12:17 PM

I think the problem, Cygnet, is that while your posts are written quite eloquent, it's the thoughts and ideas behind them that are not. Reading through them, I can't help but think of the kids in my neighbourhood driving thier Hondas with the fake after-market body panels and such--nice looking car, not much power under the hood, though. Your posts are those of someone who has not actually done much research, other than on bulletin boards (at least one) and perhaps some newspaper headlines.

The first issue, "pitty people" being defensive. You are right. Many of us are quick (perhaps sometimes too quick) to blindly defend any pitbull accused of wrong. However, I don't know how familiar you are with the Ontario issue (I would gather not really), but many of those who are the most defensive are the same people who have been ostracized and accused, and in a couple of cases, physically attacked for having what someone thought was a pitbull (more on that in a moment). You see, in Ontario, we no longer have dog attacks, we have pitbull attacks. For example, while I was off, five minutes from my home within a month were 3 dog attacks. Not one made the major newspapers, including the border collie which had to be shot by police. In another case, the dog had a muzzle order. When the dog, unmuzzled, attacked yet again, the police gave the dog back. When the officer was questioned why he wasn't doing more, he replied, "The dog isn't a pitbull, so there is nothing I can charge him with". Ironically, five minutes down the road, where my dog lives(who's been called a pitbull mix), who is hand fed biscuits by my one-year old daughter, if a vindictive neighbour hears me playing with her and decides that her "grumbles" are growls of aggression, the police could be called, and under the law, Daisy will be destroyed, and I will be eligible for a $50 000 fine.

My other point, about being accused of being a pitbull. One of the attacks by a member on the board (I'll let her identify herself if she wishes) was attacked by individuals in a car throwing a vodka bottle at her and her dog, which is not a pitbull, but a breed that averages about 150 lbs. Any person who cares to educate themselves knows that pitbulls are at most 85-90 lbs. And has also been mentioned, there have been several proven cases where a dog was labled a pitbull (twice by our illustrious Attorney General), and experts later said no, it wasn't. So, yea, sometimes we get a little defensive.

But back to this "dangerous" breed. Most attacks are determined to be a "pitbull mix" (if you chose to read past the headlines), which leads one to wonder...if the breed is so dangerous on it's own, why is it necessary to mix it? Could it be that it is the strength of the pitbull that the BYB'er is looking for, and not the tempermant? So, is this a pitbull problem?

You mention the high number of pitbulls in shelters. Again, I can only speak from the Canadian point of view (I don't know if you are Canadian or not, but I do know that your stats, if true, aren't). Many pitbulls (before the ban) are found wandering the streets (mine included). And most are determined to be gentle dogs. Speaking to the shelter workers, the common thought has been that the dog wasn't vicious enough, and was abandoned. After all, any pitbull expert will tell you that pitbulls make notoriously bad gaurd dogs (as one owner found out in Peel region, when he returned home to an ransacked house, a package of hot dogs with only one wiener missing, and a 7 year old pit. Police determined that the hot dogs were originally to keep the dog busy, but the crooks found out that they weren't necessary given the friendliness of the dog. I suspect the amiacable pooch even offered to hold the flashlight).

I find your idea of having the kennel associations mandate a "wagging tail". I won't get into the absurdity of that, but rather let me say this. First of, using the Staffordshire Terrier, one of the banned breeds, as a pitbull. In Canada, there is no recorded case of one single staffie killing, maiming, mauling, etc of anyone. Yet, they are banned. Using the same example, these dogs are called "nanny dogs" in the UK because of their temparmant, but that has not stopped them being labled "vicious pitbulls". And if you look up breed temparmants, you'll find that the staffie is listed as "great family companion, good with children". But lets suppose they did implemant some sort of test for temparmant? I would suspect that most people who are involved with any kennel club would already know the bogusness of these claims. And while I don't often watch dog shows, the ones I have seen, almost everytime these dogs are on, the announcers have talked about the "bad rap" of these "friendly dogs". No, I suspect that anyone who would take the time to consult the AKC, CKC, etc, would have already consulted the experts and other resources and would already be aware of the true temparmant of the breed.

Which brings me to my next point. You suggest that "pitty people" make thier own recommendations. Perhaps you should research the issue a little more. More specifically, I direct you to the Provincial Government Hansard that has the minutes from each of the four public committee meetings, where many alternatives were presented. As a matter of fact, there were no experts who were supportive of the BSL, only people who said that thier neighbours pitbull growled at them, and a municipal employee from Winnipeg who, while proving that the BSL in that city did indeed lower the rates of pitbull attacks, neglected to mention that the three years following, overall dog attacks increased. Then maybe take a look at the minutes from the parliamentary vote. Not one member of the current ruling party voted against the BSL, despite several constituents (including several on this board) being told that they didn't necessarily agree with it, but it was not an open vote. So, alternatives were suggested, and ignored. Even a member from Calgary was invited by the oppostion government to speak at the comittee meetings (Calgary has been listed as a success story for reducing dog attacks, including pitbulls, with no breed restrictions whatsoever), and the ruling party denied the request.

Lastly, as has been stated. This whole issue smells funny. How did the dog get the cat? Did it tip-toe in, or was the door left open? While, at the end of the day, it is probably fair to say that the dog's actions can not necessarily be excused, the lack of details is quite suspicious. And when you're told that "a pitbull killed my cat, so yours should be outlawed" without any details, you'll forgive one for being a little more than slightly defensive.

No, Cygent, I don't think you're a troll. But I do think you are a little less educated about the issue then you give yourself credit for.

Schwinn

September 19th, 2006, 12:19 PM

Oh, and sorry for the wordiness (and if there was any overlap with you, babyrock). I'm posting between phone calls here, and it's taken me an hour to do it!

technodoll

September 19th, 2006, 12:30 PM

excellent posts pitgrrl, babyrocky & schwinn :thumbs up

chico2

September 19th, 2006, 03:52 PM

Wow Schwinn,great post:thumbs up
I don't have a pit-bull,or even a dog,but what I've learned from people on this Forum who own one,has me convinced Pitties are just as wonderful as any other dog,maybe even more so.
As with any dog,if treated badly a pit-bull,will react.
If treated as he should be,with love and care,he will be a great loving dog,like any other well trained,loved dog:dog:

babyrocky1

September 19th, 2006, 03:56 PM

Oh, and sorry for the wordiness (and if there was any overlap with you, babyrock). I'm posting between phone calls here, and it's taken me an hour to do it! No problem Schwinn...apparantly it cant be repeated often enough! LOL Calgary, Calgary, Calgary!
And as both Schwinn and I have pointed out...WE "PITTIE PEOPLE" have come up with important positive alternatives....so Cygnet I will ask YOU again as I have in other posts, if you feel so strongly that "your" ideas are best then by all means go to the governments involved in BSL and propose them as a compromise and then you might see what you are up against. If we had proposed that compromise to the Ontario Government (and Im not sure someone didnt) I would bet my LIFE that it would NOT have been accepted because THE "PIt Bull Ban" has never had anything to do with public safety in Ontario and probably not much to do with it in any place else either.

Honest governments who have looked at BSL and the HUGE amount of evidence against it have rejected in favour of laws that are similar to the ones in CALGARY!
Please see Hansard!

babyrocky1

September 19th, 2006, 04:06 PM

Perhaps if the plight of pitbulls is weighing so heavy on you, you could look into getting involved or starting up similar programs in your area, rather than sitting back and critizing the breed and it's communities.

Exactly.....! This is whats so frustrating, dont waste time arguing with us...go do something postive or even what you believe is positive and then maybe we will take you more seriously!
You seem to have taken every opportunity you can to post something obviously antagonistic towards the majority of this board so I once AGAIN I question your motivation.

chico2

September 19th, 2006, 04:34 PM

It seems this argument is going on in several threads and it's going nowhere,other than making pittie owners frustrated and angry,righfully so.
I know of one,to me,very important member of this Forum,who could not handle this discussion and is now no longer present and it is a terrible shame.:sad:
It seems a huge brickwall has been erected by one person and trying to tear it down is an impossible task.:pawprint:

babyrocky1

September 19th, 2006, 04:42 PM

Your right Chico, I would like to see the links to hansard posted again though and also the petition that we had against bill 132, that way people that are just coming online can see for themsleves. Ive been searching for them but we all know I suck at that kind of thing LOL
Does anyone know were theres some text summing up the Calgary laws?

LM1313

September 19th, 2006, 04:48 PM

To go back to an issue that cropped up several pages ago . . . the daschund rescue lists the reason each dog was turned over to them. NONE of their current dogs were turned over due to animal aggression. (I can't check on their previous dogs, obviously, as their profiles are gone.) The rescue "tests" their temperament with cats in a controlled environment (so the cats won't be hurt), which is how they know they're cat-aggressive.

Again, what does it mean to be deemed "aggressive"? The types of temperment tests used in many shelters would fail a dog for showing high prey drive or dog aggression. To me, neither of these traits should be labled as generic aggression. If a dog is highly fearful, shows signs of human aggression, etc. than by all means, give the dog a great day, some love, and then do the responsible thing and cull.

Not all highly fearful dogs are going to bite or attack . And when it comes to genetically fearful it does not become apparent until the dog hits puberty, those that are fearful due to undersocialation will be fearful at a much earlier age.
There are 2 difference responses to fear one is flight and the other to defend, and fearful dogs can fall into either category, a behaviourist that I worked with years ago showed me how he tested for the responses to determine which would be fear biters. I have had 2 spooks Callie even in extreme pain with cancer ehen I had to pick her and move her would not put her teeth on me. THe first 2 years I had to corner Maya whenever I needed to handle her never once has she shown any type of agression

To suggest all fearful dogs should be culled is no different than suggesting all pits are agressive and should be culled, that is the problem with using generalized statements

pitgrrl

September 19th, 2006, 08:54 PM

To suggest all fearful dogs should be culled is no different than suggesting all pits are agressive and should be culled, that is the problem with using generalized statements

My mistake, I wasn't clear. I was just trying to illustrate a example of dog who's temperment was not clearly unsafe, but you're absolutely right, the way I wrote it did communicate an unfairly generalized statement, one which I did not intend.

technodoll

September 19th, 2006, 09:33 PM

hey prin.... any updates on the letter in yesterday's gazette? any backlash, reply letters to the editor? :confused: it seems the original idea behind this thread got lost somewhere: i STILL want to know how the heck a dog just wandered into an NDG appartment, attacked & killed a cat, was still there when the police arrived and never turned on the crutch that was beating it! :eek:

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 05:01 AM

[QUOTE=babyrocky1]No problem Schwinn...apparantly it cant be repeated often enough! LOL Calgary, Calgary, Calgary!
And as both Schwinn and I have pointed out...WE "PITTIE PEOPLE" have come up with important positive alternatives....so Cygnet I will ask YOU again as I have in other posts, if you feel so strongly that "your" ideas are best then by all means go to the governments involved in BSL and propose them as a compromise and then you might see what you are up against. If we had proposed that compromise to the Ontario Government (and Im not sure someone didnt) I would bet my LIFE that it would NOT have been accepted because THE "PIt Bull Ban" has never had anything to do with public safety in Ontario and probably not much to do with it in any place else either.
QUOTE]

It is obviously way too late for "compromise" in Ontario. You lost. Maybe you'll get a second bite of the apple as a result of the lawsuit, maybe not. (In the US, I would predict that you wouldn't win be likely to win a legal challenge to BSL, but I have no idea what your chances are in Canada).

What I am suggesting is that, whatever the pit bull community believes, this legislation was passed because it is popular and gets votes, and there is a reason it is popular. In the US (again, I can't speak to Canada) the reason pit bull bans are very popular with most of the electorate is that there are a ton of problems caused by pit bull people. (I won't say "caused by pit bulls" because you all are right that it isn't the dogs who are the problem--it is the irresponsible breeders of pit bulls that cause them to glut shelters and make headlines).

If by some miracle you somehow get the law overthrown (and not replaced immediately by something nearly identical that passes legal muster) then you still are faced with a situation where you have won the battle and lost the war. Pit bulls and their owners will become even more unpopular. You will be seen (basically) as criminals who got away with it because of a legal loophole. When the next pit bull mauling happens (and it will), the hostility will increase. Responsible people will be even LESS likely to get pit bulls and irresponsible people will be more likely to.

In short, if the situation in Canada isn't now as bad as the situation in the US for pit bulls, it will be.

If, on the other hand, there is a concensus among responsible pit bull people that breed specific laws requiring the spay/neuter of all non-show pit bulls are necessary (to protect pit bulls AND the public), and should be passed, then everybody wins. Pit bulls get levels of protection (from irresponsible breeders) that the responsible communities of other breeds can only dream about. Politicians get the satisfaction of having "done something" about pit bulls (and, amazingly, the thing that they have done will help solve the problem and protect both the public and pit bulls) and pit bull owners get the relief of not lying awake at night wondering whether there is going to be a headline in the paper the next day that will cause their beloved dog to be seized and killed. Plus, if anybody cares, the number of sweet pit bulls who suffer in horrible homes and end up dying lonely, terrified deaths at
shelters will go from a torrent to a trickle.

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 05:08 AM

To go back to an issue that cropped up several pages ago . . . the daschund rescue lists the reason each dog was turned over to them. NONE of their current dogs were turned over due to animal aggression. (I can't check on their previous dogs, obviously, as their profiles are gone.) The rescue "tests" their temperament with cats in a controlled environment (so the cats won't be hurt), which is how they know they're cat-aggressive.

Do you have a link to the rescue page? How many dachshunds were listed, total? I ask because I have talked to Jack Russell rescue people who have told me that a huge percentage of the JRTs that they get in rescue came in because of cat killing. The average dachshund is obviously less serious about and less likely to have lethal amounts of prey drive than the average JRT, (or the average pit bull) so perhaps that accounts for the difference.

Puppyluv

September 20th, 2006, 05:55 AM

.

What I am suggesting is that, whatever the pit bull community believes, this legislation was passed because it is popular and gets votes, and there is a reason it is popular. In the US (again, I can't speak to Canada) the reason pit bull bans are very popular with most of the electorate is that there are a ton of problems caused by pit bull people. (I won't say "caused by pit bulls" because you all are right that it isn't the dogs who are the problem--it is the irresponsible breeders of pit bulls that cause them to glut shelters and make headlines).

It acutally has a lot to do with the fact that the majority of the population can't properly identify a pitbull. Dog attacks? It's a pitbull. Pitbulls are easy targets. We've had these discussions time and time again, what are you trying to get at Cygnet? The rest of us have hashed out BSL since it was propsed/we joined. The last thing we need (especially the people who are fighting REAL BSL battles -rather than just argue with you) is to have you rehash this again and again in multiple threads no less, and for you to attack the Anti-BSL proponents.

pitgrrl

September 20th, 2006, 07:50 AM

If by some miracle you somehow get the law overthrown (and not replaced immediately by something nearly identical that passes legal muster) then you still are faced with a situation where you have won the battle and lost the war. Pit bulls and their owners will become even more unpopular. You will be seen (basically) as criminals who got away with it because of a legal loophole. When the next pit bull mauling happens (and it will), the hostility will increase. Responsible people will be even LESS likely to get pit bulls and irresponsible people will be more likely to.

I'm not sure why you want to go around and around this with people, as you seem to have have already made some big assumptions about the issue that you're not letting go of. I still suggest that instead of relying newspaper articles and internet forums, you go out and spend some actual time helping out at a rescue or org. that is fighting BSL, you might be surprised at the lack of "criminals".

You seem to have developed the idea that most "pitbull people", as you catagorize them, are infact dog fighters and criminals. My suspicion is that those elements exsist, but that the bulk of the problem, as with pet over population as a whole, is just good old irresponsible ownership, and by this I mean someone who has no particular ill intent, but just aren't on top of things. They let their dogs wander, have a litter or two, get rid of the dog when it's no longer easy to have them around. Some may even get a pitbull because it has a certain image, but that's still not the same thing as fighting or torturing a dog.

So you want to see mandatory spay/neuter for all pet pitbull, why not all pet dogs, regardless of breed? Do the unwanted litters of lab, GSD, Husky, or Rottie puppies not bother you? If you're concerned that "pitbull people" get pegged as criminals just for the dog they choose to own, would it not be better to have legislation which does not further segregate them from the rest of the dog owning population ?

I think it's clear that you are the one who sees "pitbull people" as a criminal element, and pitbulls are the domain of only dog fighters and thugs. You go so far as to refer to other forums to back up your claims, but had you spent any time there you would have seen a community that is harder working, more responsible and generous than many you'll ever encounter. It's also been my experience that although some people make nasty comments about my dogs, many, many people stop me to talk about what a bad rap they're getting. Others take the time to talk to me about the dogs of their youth, often pitbull types, that were the greatest family pets. So as much as BSL enforces people's preconcieved notions of "pitbulls" as dangerous dogs, it also brings out alot of support you might not have known was there.

Again (and again, and again...) I really suggest you spend some time in the communities you presume to judge. So many of the things you are presenting as fact are merely surface level assumptions, with little to back them up.

Schwinn

September 20th, 2006, 08:56 AM

It is obviously way too late for "compromise" in Ontario. You lost. Maybe you'll get a second bite of the apple as a result of the lawsuit, maybe not. (In the US, I would predict that you wouldn't win be likely to win a legal challenge to BSL, but I have no idea what your chances are in Canada).

Strange, and what would you base that prediction on? Surely not Ohio where the courts overturned BSL, or Pennsylvania where there is a law prohibiting BSL. I doubt it was Oregon, where they looked at everything including BSL, and realized that it did not stand up to legal tests. Maybe you're thinking of Colorado, and are just forgetting that the courts there also ruled against BSL, but were then informed that that particular court has no jurisdiction over city by-laws? You must have forgot that anti-BSL supporters are now going through the proper courts. Would you be looking at the recent case in Adelaide? No, of course not. Anti-BSL won there, too.

If by some miracle you somehow get the law overthrown (and not replaced immediately by something nearly identical that passes legal muster) then you still are faced with a situation where you have won the battle and lost the war. Pit bulls and their owners will become even more unpopular. You will be seen (basically) as criminals who got away with it because of a legal loophole. When the next pit bull mauling happens (and it will), the hostility will increase. Responsible people will be even LESS likely to get pit bulls and irresponsible people will be more likely to.

In the unlikely event that this court case reaches the same conclusion of every other court case :rolleyes: You're assuming that anti-BSL people only started fighting when the BSL came in, and that they will stop once it is out. Again, you obviously don't pay attention. Most anti-BSL people have been fighting for responsible dog legislation even before the Mighty Midget screamed "BANNED! BANNED! BANNED!". That and the fact that the official opposition government has drawn up thier own legislation which we will not allow them to forget. My family has spoken to Julia Munro, and sure assures us they will not.

Oh, and most of us are not considered criminals now, except by the patently stupid, or incredibly ignorant...

If, on the other hand, there is a concensus among responsible pit bull people that breed specific laws requiring the spay/neuter of all non-show pit bulls are necessary (to protect pit bulls AND the public), and should be passed, then everybody wins.

And if we all come to concensus that there is a tooth fairy, we'll wake up with quarters under our pillows in the morning. Group concensus does not make it true.

Pit bulls get levels of protection (from irresponsible breeders) that the responsible communities of other breeds can only dream about. Politicians get the satisfaction of having "done something" about pit bulls (and, amazingly, the thing that they have done will help solve the problem and protect both the public and pit bulls) and pit bull owners get the relief of not lying awake at night wondering whether there is going to be a headline in the paper the next day that will cause their beloved dog to be seized and killed. Plus, if anybody cares, the number of sweet pit bulls who suffer in horrible homes and end up dying lonely, terrified deaths at
shelters will go from a torrent to a trickle.

You mean like in the case of responsible dog ownership laws? I'd love a place like that, where all dogs (not just pitbulls) are protected from cruel individuals, and dog attacks (not just pitbulls) are greatly reduced. Something that would lower the number of animals dying in shelters. I think I'd call that place, "Calgary".

As I said, nice looking car. Not much power under the hood, though.

jawert1

September 20th, 2006, 09:00 AM

I ask because I have talked to Jack Russell rescue people who have told me that a huge percentage of the JRTs that they get in rescue came in because of cat killing. The average dachshund is obviously less serious about and less likely to have lethal amounts of prey drive than the average JRT, (or the average pit bull) so perhaps that accounts for the difference.

Pardon me yet again, but "huge percentage"? Are we talking a majority? How many JRT rescues are included in this statement? Yet again, we've got gross generalities and absolutely no hard facts. I've yet to see a small working dog that doesn't have a prey drive, given most of the terrier breeds were bred for ratting (rat = prey), or other vermin control (rabbits, gophers, etc.) and that includes doxies. You need to research your breeds and what they were originally intended for before you assess prey drive/targets from one to the next, before positing personal bias as expert opinion.

http://www.bdnhumanesociety.com/calgary_solution.htm
Thank you sooo much Pitgrrrl.....Cygnet PLEASE read this before you continue to post!

I will give you one more point...if we do have the law overturned I believe you are correct in the assumption that we will have a HUGE problem with media AGAIN...we must be ready to educate the public properly so that they understand what we have proposed and why.

We will have to take on the responsibility of immmediately turning the discussion towards proper alternatives. This is a difficult thing to do because people prefer "good clip" rather than indepth understanding of an issue. Obviously if the general public is like you we will have an uphill batttle as you are REFUSING to comprehend what we are saying to you.

Countless people have asked you to do the research that we have done in order to really understand the dynamic that has played out in Ontario and has most definately been modelled in other places.

The general public, at one time, was clamering for a "pit bull ban" but we did make alot of headway with the media considering our relatively small numbers and lack of resources. We have alot of media on our side now and the attorney general who once thought he would look like a hero has been exposed as the publicity hound that he is and bill 132 is the product of that.
While he has been busy banning "pit bulls" which he has made his reputation on, real crime has flourished under his watch so the comparisons of his inaction on real crime ex. gun violence etc, compared to his daily speeches about pit bulls has not been lost on the people of Ontario!

Yes there is a problem with BYB and if there are not mandatory sp/ nueter laws for all dogs and breeding is not regulated there will be more BYBs of other breeds and the problem will magnify.
As the streets of Toronto and other cities in Ontario become more and more violent, (one of the real problems in Ontario) there will be more and more dogs bred to be vicious....so the fault lies with the government for refusing to enact good dog legislation and unfortunately the responsibility will still be passed to us to explain to the public what good legislation is.
WE WILL RISE TO THE TASK!!! Do you really think we dont know this and we needed YOU to point that out??? GEEEEZ!
We can see how hard it will be by how this conversation is going with you. We want laws like the ones in Calgary. Yet you spend all this time arguing with us and NOT reading it!

When I suggested you take your compromise to governments I did not mean Ontario, I was talking about governments in your own vicinity, if thats what you believe then what are YOU doing about it??? How many times have you been asked that question and ones similar to that??? Pitgrrl has suggested you spend sometime working with rescues to see for yourself...any response????

BTW Peter Kormos MPP, did, as I remember, ask in committee if sp/nueter especially nueter cuts down on dog aggression. He was told it did and he asked why we couldnt just do that...I dont believe he was given an answer by the government, but there you go, it was brought up....does that make you happy?
As with all of the other suggestions it was dismissed because it wouldnt be sensational enough for headlines!!!!!!!!!! Thats what we face...Michael BRyant wanted sensationalised headlines and thats what he got!!! I cant believe were still going through this over and over and over and over......... palease I need the smiley that bangs its head against the wall!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prin

September 20th, 2006, 02:43 PM

Great posts Schwinn, Babyrocky, Jawert and Pitgrrl.:)

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 07:26 PM

I'm not sure why you want to go around and around this with people, as you seem to have have already made some big assumptions about the issue that you're not letting go of. I still suggest that instead of relying newspaper articles and internet forums, you go out and spend some actual time helping out at a rescue or org. that is fighting BSL, you might be surprised at the lack of "criminals".

You seem to have developed the idea that most "pitbull people", as you catagorize them, are infact dog fighters and criminals. My suspicion is that those elements exsist, but that the bulk of the problem, as with pet over population as a whole, is just good old irresponsible ownership, and by this I mean someone who has no particular ill intent, but just aren't on top of things. They let their dogs wander, have a litter or two, get rid of the dog when it's no longer easy to have them around. Some may even get a pitbull because it has a certain image, but that's still not the same thing as fighting or torturing a dog.

So you want to see mandatory spay/neuter for all pet pitbull, why not all pet dogs, regardless of breed? Do the unwanted litters of lab, GSD, Husky, or Rottie puppies not bother you? If you're concerned that "pitbull people" get pegged as criminals just for the dog they choose to own, would it not be better to have legislation which does not further segregate them from the rest of the dog owning population ?

I think it's clear that you are the one who sees "pitbull people" as a criminal element, and pitbulls are the domain of only dog fighters and thugs. You go so far as to refer to other forums to back up your claims, but had you spent any time there you would have seen a community that is harder working, more responsible and generous than many you'll ever encounter. It's also been my experience that although some people make nasty comments about my dogs, many, many people stop me to talk about what a bad rap they're getting. Others take the time to talk to me about the dogs of their youth, often pitbull types, that were the greatest family pets. So as much as BSL enforces people's preconcieved notions of "pitbulls" as dangerous dogs, it also brings out alot of support you might not have known was there.

Again (and again, and again...) I really suggest you spend some time in the communities you presume to judge. So many of the things you are presenting as fact are merely surface level assumptions, with little to back them up.

pitgrrl,

I am not sure where you are getting that I am saying that "most pit bull people are criminals." I suggest (as you note) that laws be passed mandating that non-show dog (and perhaps add health screens) pit bulls be spayed/neutered. This would CLEARLY be good for pit bulls, which currently glut most urban shelters because of incredibly irresponsible overbreeding. About the only thing that pit bull people say against such a law is that it wouldn't work, and people wouldn't obey it. Huh? To me, that seems translate that you all are saying that pit bull people are criminals. I, on the other hand, believe that if a law is passed mandating the spay/neuter of pet quality pit bulls, probably a whole lot of (most?) pit bull people will get their dogs spayed/neutered because they are not criminals and therefore they obey the law. Right?

You certainly don't believe that all those pit bulls dying in shelters are ALL being bred by criminals, do you?

I'm not going to fight against breed specific legislation, because I am in favor of breed specific legislation. I think it represents the only realistic chance that pit bulls have for survival.

Again, the fact that there are unwanted rotties and labradors dying in shelters doesn't mean that one should be AGAINST breed specific legislation that helps pit bulls. Maybe you wish it also protected labs and rotties, but hey, get what you can. Plus, of course, pit bulls face far worse if somehting isn't done. There isn't anyplace where labs are being seized from their owners and killed just because of their breed.

There is actually a rational basis for treating pit bulls differently than any other breed. They are FAR AND AWAY where the worst problems are (in the US, at least). There is no shelter where the canine population is 65% labradors or rotties or where 60% of the labradors/rotties fail the temperament tests. You Aunt Mildred's pomeranian isn't making headlines. The pomeranian's puppies are not being killed at the shelter. I know it hurts the feelings of pit bull people that laws aren't going to be passed controlling her dog breeding, but honestly, you all need to stop thinking about your hurt feelings and start thinking about what is hurting pit bulls. It is, sadly, pit bull breeders. They need to be controlled and they won't be controlled without laws.

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 07:46 PM

[QUOTE=Schwinn]Strange, and what would you base that prediction on? Surely not Ohio where the courts overturned BSL, or Pennsylvania where there is a law prohibiting BSL. I doubt it was Oregon, where they looked at everything including BSL, and realized that it did not stand up to legal tests. Maybe you're thinking of Colorado, and are just forgetting that the courts there also ruled against BSL, but were then informed that that particular court has no jurisdiction over city by-laws? You must have forgot that anti-BSL supporters are now going through the proper courts. Would you be looking at the recent case in Adelaide? No, of course not. Anti-BSL won there, too.
QUOTE]

Unless I missed something, the Ohio case is on currently on appeal, unfortunately to the Ohio Supreme Court which has previously declined to overturn Ohio's statewide restrictions on pit bulls. It is certainly possible that they might reverse themselves, but I wouldn't bet on it.

You aren't correct about what happened in Colorado, I don't believe. Actually what happened there was that the State Legislature passed a law saying that there couldn't be breed bans and the City of Denver (they [B]really[B] like their pit bull ban) went to court and challenged it and the court said that the State couldn't tell the City of Denver that it couldn't ban pit bulls.

Of course, a number of states (I think ten or eleven) have (or had) laws prohibiting breed specific laws. However, to my knowledge, these are all laws, not constitutional provisions and what the legislature giveth, the legislature can take away, as pit bull owners in California just found out when California specifically changed their law to allow for breed specific legislation in the wake of a particularly bad pit bull attack.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "anti-BSL supporters are now going through the proper courts." If you mean to imply that breed specific legislation is just now being challenged in court for the first time, that is totally wrong. There have been challenges to breed specific legislation (and outright breed bans) in many different states, the vast majority of which have failed.

By the way, if I were an appellate judge hearing a breed ban case, I would probably hold that breed bans were unconstitutionally vague at least when used to generate criminal charges against people who don't acknowledge that their dogs are pit bulls. Courts haven't seen it that way, generally, since the void for vagueness argument has been tried over and over and has been rejected. Too bad for you guys that I am not an appellate judge...

wdawson

September 20th, 2006, 07:47 PM

this web site is called pets.CA........ca meaning canada.........and most pit owners on here are in ontario.......you keep harping about spay\neuter......we all have done that......and i bet all of us before the ban. you seem to quote us statistics(that youdon't really back up with any real proof from a legitimate source....and you have still not told us what credentials you have that qualify you as an all round animal expert........can't you find an american site to preach your pro-bsl\anti pit rant too,as you are clearly american.

babyrocky1

September 20th, 2006, 07:47 PM

Cygnet we are not asking you to fight BSL as you obviously have repeatedly told us you beilieve in "your own version of BSL" so we are suggesting that you approach governments considering BANS and fight for YOUR version of BSL. (we know how far this will get you) Also it has been suggested that you do some work with rescues, you have not chosen to comment on that either. We have told you what we are doing to try and help, but you have refused to answer the question about what YOU are doing.

In Canada Pit Bulls score EXTREMELY high in temperment testing...again those stats are here. Have you READ HANSARD YET or THE CALGARY Laws????

ONE MORE TIME...this is what we are advocating so please read it before any futher comments about how emotional we all are and how only you have the answers and for some mysterious reason dont want to share your profound wisdom with those in power, you prefer to continually tell us about it!:eek:

Schwinn

September 20th, 2006, 08:09 PM

Unless I missed something, the Ohio case is on currently on appeal, unfortunately to the Ohio Supreme Court which has previously declined to overturn Ohio's statewide restrictions on pit bulls. It is certainly possible that they might reverse themselves, but I wouldn't bet on it.

You did. It's been overturned.

You aren't correct about what happened in Colorado, I don't believe. Actually what happened there was that the State Legislature passed a law saying that there couldn't be breed bans and the City of Denver (they [B]really[B] like their pit bull ban) went to court and challenged it and the court said that the State couldn't tell the City of Denver that it couldn't ban pit bulls.

Well, you'd believe wrong, then.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "anti-BSL supporters are now going through the proper courts." If you mean to imply that breed specific legislation is just now being challenged in court for the first time, that is totally wrong. There have been challenges to breed specific legislation (and outright breed bans) in many different states, the vast majority of which have failed.

Again, you'd be wrong. The vast majority of court challenges to BSL have found in favour of the anti-BSL factions. Unfortunatly, you've been choosing to quote from the Big Book of Stats I've Pulled from My Butt. You've given made up numbers, scenarios that don't exist, and even after you've been presented with evidence to the contrary (have you looked at Calgary yet?), you choosen to further prove your ignorance. I don't mean to be rude here, but I think I speak for a lot of individuals when I say that the frustration arises in that you aren't debating, you're re-iterating a position that has already been proven, for the most part, to not be true. Anyone who has done a modecrum of research sees that you have not. You state that there are no alternatives, we've given you several examples of successful alternatives. You've stated that there is a major pitbull problem, we've given evidence as to why that is only percieved and not fact. You've stated that we only see pitbulls, and want to defeat BSL, when we've stated, and shown, we want responsible ownership laws. We're concerned about abuse of all dogs, responsible breeding of all dogs, and punishing those who would fight any breed (especially since we are already seeing the pitbull losing ground in popularity to another breed, the Dogo Argentina). Your solutions do nothing for Courtney Tremp, the child in North Bay, the two examples given by the Mighty Midget (which he incorrectly stated were pitbulls), or my sister who lost half her lip (which is ironic, considering she is the only person I know who has ever came close to having thier face ripped off. I keep hearing people talk about pitbulls ripping kids faces off, but I haven't seen one yet). I could list many, many others within Ontario, and it would dwarf any list you could give me from any one state or province.

No, my friend. Our frustration doesn't come from being defensive, it comes from trying to argue with a brick wall who argues conjecture, phantom stats, and, with each post, further proves that has not done enough significant research to enter into meaningful dialogue. That, and refuses to listen to the other side.

Too bad for you guys that I am not an appellate judge...

I'd say society in general should be thankful. They're required to review actual facts and stats.

jesse's mommy

September 20th, 2006, 08:21 PM

Too bad for you guys that I am not an appellate judge...

Do you actually think people would vote for you? Please, judges need to be objective and open. Unfortunately you are neither.

You seriously need to open your mind and learn something before you speak here. Us "Pitty People" (as you state over and over again) are here to stay and will continue to fight for pitty's and all breeds that are in danger of having a ban put on them. It's such a shame that you think this is an interesting debate, but in actuality you are just making yourself look like a fool with your false facts and accusations.

This started out as a reasonable thread commenting on a letter to the editor of the Gazette and you turned it into your own motives again. Go preach to someone who will listen.

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 08:39 PM

[QUOTE=Schwinn]You did. It's been overturned.

QUOTE]

Jeeze Schwinn, now you've done it. You made me actually go do some legal research. You claim that I somehow missed the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court overturning breed specific legislation in the case of City of Toledo v. Tellings. Alas, you are wrong.

to see the docket entries in this case. It hasn't even been briefed or argued yet. There was a motion for a stay of execution filed by the City of Toledo that was granted. The effect of this is to leave all the previous breed specific laws in place pending this appeal. Mr. Tellings (arguing against the breed specific legislation) asked to lift that stay. His motion to lift the stay was denied.

Again, this is not to say that the Ohio Supreme Court won't reverse itself. However, you are quite wrong to claim that they already have.

Schwinn

September 20th, 2006, 08:50 PM

Jeeze Schwinn, now you've done it. You made me actually go do some legal research.

First time for everything.

However, here is a copy of the actual decision of the court.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf

I'll make it easy. Last page where it states JUDGEMENT REVERSED

Cygnet

September 20th, 2006, 08:54 PM

[QUOTE=Schwinn]

Again, you'd be wrong. The vast majority of court challenges to BSL have found in favour of the anti-BSL factions. Unfortunatly, you've been choosing to quote from the Big Book of Stats I've Pulled from My Butt.

[QUOTE]

Not according to 80 ALR 4th 70. That article notes that in the US, most breed bans have been upheld. Can you cite to any LEGAL (as opposed to pit bull people telling each other what they want to hear and believe) article that disputes that finding?

Again, this isn't to say that is how it should be. But if the pit bull community believes things that aren't so about the legal climate (such as your claim that the Ohio Supreme Court has already overturned Ohio BSL...) then they can't really see the issue as it is. Not facing reality is not helpful to anybody, frankly.

wdawson

September 20th, 2006, 09:01 PM

let me guess..........spay\neuter is the answer:rolleyes:

pitgrrl

September 20th, 2006, 09:07 PM

I know it hurts the feelings of pit bull people that laws aren't going to be passed controlling her dog breeding, but honestly, you all need to stop thinking about your hurt feelings and start thinking about what is hurting pit bulls. It is, sadly, pit bull breeders.

I was going to just start ignoring this thread, because frankly it's making my head hurt and there's no point in trying to have a reasonable debate when huge generalized statements, which have little to no basis, are being used as fact, BUT, the above statement is frankly insulting.

To suggest that people working in rescue and fighting BSL, and even just decent, responsible pitbull owners, are over emotional and not keeping what is best for these dogs at the forefront of their efforts is just unbelieveable and extremely disrespectful. Perhaps if you started listening to what people are saying, reading the info that is being provided and making a bit of effort to look into the work people are doing, you would understand how arrogant a statement that is.

BoxerMom

September 20th, 2006, 09:11 PM

Can we not agree to disagree? It's like this w/ all breeds! Every breed has their own stereotype:rolleyes: . 'Pits are mean', 'Cockers are hard to housebreak', 'all Chihuahuas are ankle biters'. These are things said about one specific dog then flipped that 'all dogs of this breed' are this way. Be it true for some or not for others...In the end its the OWNERS! The owners determine the animal. If you are irresponsible, your dog will run amuck. There are 'special' cases where dogs act out-by no fault of the loving owner. HOWEVER any breed can do this. Not JUST pits..labs, cockers, shih-tzus-you name it.

And to bash one specific breed-on an ANIMAL board is not smart(or nice!). There are pit owners on here who are offended-I am a Boxer owner and I AM OFFEND! Poor Prin-what did you start?!:p